also something that i've been wondering for a while. both you and jundo both have facial hair and you have long hair. in the shobogenzo it specifically states that buddhist priests should not grow their hair long or sport facial hair. just wondering why you ignore that bit.

and before anyone brings up wiping your urethra with little balls of clay, the part about shaving your head is much stronger than that part in its wording. it basically says that priests who have long hair are not real priests.

Hi Brad,You've said before that you're uncomfortable wearing the robes, and now I can see why... it sounded kinda funny to hear you saying that "Buddhism was about dealing with reality" while you're wearing a costume.

"those who do not understand [the importance of shaving the head] are not secular people and not monks; they are just animals. since ancient times, was there any buddhist patriartch who did not shave the head? those who do not understand [the importance of) shaving the head are truly animals." p.59 of the nishijima cross version of shobogenzo

I thought it was interesting that the interviewer called punk "nihilistic" and you managed to counter that point without it taking away from what you were saying about zen and your story. I liked that you pointed out that the things that went wrong with the punk movement were the same things that were wrong about society at large.

You avoided the spin he was trying to give to your story skillfully :-) Sounded like he was going to try to turn it into a "punk boy finds God" story or something.

I probably would've gotten pissed off at the dude's statement that punk was nihilistic. Such the "mainstream" stereotype!

In response to Dan's comment: "supposed to" is a tricky phrase. Who supposes? Who dictates the rules? I'm not sure if anyone in Nishijima's tradition has made particular rules about when lay priests may wear robes, but in general, it's not about when you're "supposed to" wear robes as when it is right and helpful.

The Vinaya code does state when bikkhus should wear robes: always. But we're at a strange time in history when there is more in-between space between lay patrons of the Dharma and celibate monastics. Plus, there are further questions posed by mass media, which Buddha of course did not address directly because television hadn't been invented.

So, at this point in history, lay Dharma teachers have to choose skillfully how to appear in order to help other beings understand the Dharma. Sometimes they feel it is skillful to wear robes. Other times they feel it is skillful to wear street clothes. Lama Surya Das appeared on The Colbert Report wearing a business suit, for instance. You may be right that it would have been more skillful for Brad to appear on KRON wearing something else, or you may not be, but in the end, it's his decision to make. And any outfit is, in some sense, a costume.

This should answer the question about why I grew my hair back. Things have relaxed somewhat in the past 800 years. Plus everybody shaves their head these days so the symbolic meaning is pretty much lost. As for robes, Nishijima encourages his students to wear them whenever it's appropriate. The TV producers wanted it. I felt silly.

This is really me this time, by the way. Not sure if I'm gonna make a habit of commenting in my own blog.

"it's not about when you're "supposed to" wear robes as when it is right and helpful."

that's surely the same thing drew:

how about ' you're supposed to wear them when it's right and helpful'

i would argue that the only time its right and helpful to wear robes is in the zazen hall.

my personal theory about why robes are right and helpful is purely the practical reasons that when you are sitting with your eyes open, if your body is covered with a big black cloth then this helps get rid of the feeling of an individual. you cant see your clothes and body so you tend to think of your 'self' less if you see what i mean. that's the only reason i wear a robe when i sit and mines not even a proper kesa i just use a big black dressing gown or a blanket if its cold.

from my perspective of the only reason to wear the kesa being the practical one i just mentioned, to me it seems taht wearing your robes outside of that situation is akin to a boxer coming on to that tv show in shorts and boxing gloves or a surfer coming on wearing a wetsuit. out of the practical function those outfits serve it just looks silly to wear them.

i know i have a tendency to be a bit of a fanboy too, but this whole 'as soon as someone says anything that is even slightly off from 'you're great brad, i friggin love everything about you!' they get slated by everyone; well it's just getting a bit ridculous. it is OK to criticise brad you know. you dont have to assume that everything he does is right. sheesh.

"Plus everybody shaves their head these days so the symbolic meaning is pretty much lost."

you see again tho i would say that the reason to keep the hair short is a practical one rather than a symbolic one. i once saw this documentary about burmese monks and this monk said the reason why they shave their heads and faces is purely because it is easy to become attached to your hairstyle. he said something about young'uns getting too obsessed with combing and styling their hair which wasn;t a very helpful thing to focus on so for this reason they encouraged thema ll to keep their hair short.

Dan, it may be a question of semantics, but I think there's a difference between "supposed to" and "helpful." If someone says, for instance, "I know I'm supposed to brush my teeth every day," it sounds like brushing is something done to live up to a certain standard, rather than a chosen habit based in dedication to dental health. If someone says, "You're not supposed to wear blue jeans to church," it suggests the same appeal to authority. So whether it's skillful to wear robes in a public appearance... is open to debate.

I like the shaved pic too. If the robes makes you feel silly, there's probably a good reason... like, you kinda look silly wearing them. Sorry.

'drew said: And any outfit is, in some sense, a costume.

Ordinary clothes in modern US society don't really qualify as costume in my opinion, as the word is commonly used in the US today. Yes, if you want to go strictly by the dictionary definition of costume I think any clothes pretty much fit, but that's not the way most people use the word 'costume' today.

The word costume implies unusual, even fanciful dress, to most English speakers. And I think the impression the average Joe has of Buddhist robes definitely falls into 'costume'.

Usually a costume worn by people with a somewhat tenuous connection to reality, who spend their time hanging out in airports giving away flowers. At least, that's what a lot of people in the US think of when they see Buddhist robes, thanks to the Krishnas.

It shouldn't matter what you wear. But if you're making the time and effort to do TV interviews, then you must have something you want to communicate with people. If a significant chunk of your target audience stops listening when they see a hippy-dippy costume, then you are not communicating as effectively as you could be.

For example, say I really liked wearing a cat-in-the-hat top hat and wore it all the time. I want to warn people about the dangers of the chemicals in fast food, and I manage to score a TV interview. Should I wear my hat to the interview? Or should I make a little sacrifice, in the name of getting ordinary people to take me seriously, and put the hat away for the day?

I think Buddhist robes are more culturally recognized in Japan than they are in the US... people are more familiar with them. They probably don't look so silly to people over there.

If Brad's not going to keep the monastic vow of celibacy, one of the four root vows in the Vinaya, it seems silly to quible about wearing or not wearing robes or long hair. Very few monks in Japan observe the Vinaya and I don't know how Buddhist monasticism is undertood in modern Japan.

Incidentally, the four root vows in the Vinaya are not to kill, not to steal, not to engage in sex, and not to lie about one's spiritual attainments. If the root vows are broken, you're no longer a monk or nun.

Jules writes: Ordinary clothes in modern US society don't really qualify as costume in my opinion, as the word is commonly used in the US today.

What is "ordinary"? To call a certain outfit ordinary is to suggest that there's a natural, ordinary state of self, and that there is a particular kind of clothing that is ordinary for that self. But that's not true. I have a set of clothes that I consider ordinary for running daily errands. I have a set of clothes that I consider ordinary for work. I have a set of clothes--robes--that I consider ordinary for the temple. And I have clothes that I consider ordinary for bed. Wearing any one set of clothes for the wrong "performance" would be unusual. It would feel kind of like a costume if I wore my Saturday clothes on a Tuesday, even though those clothes feel most comfortable.

So what's "ordinary" to wear for a TV appearance? Most men appearing on a TV interview would wear a tie. If Brad went on a TV interview wearing a tie, that would be unusual for him. If he went on wearing a faded concert t-shirt, that would be unusual for the show. The clothes he chooses represent which "Brad Warner" was showing up for the interview.

The Buddhist teaching of anatta means that there is no inherent self. Every expression of self is a choice, and every expression of self is temporary. We're all wearing costumes.

If I was a Punk Zen Priest and people made assumptions and expected me to not wear robes, I would throw on the robes just to piss everybody off lol.... no, to break people from the attatchment to whether I wear robes or a Godzilla shirt or whatever.

Brad, can you post the dates of when you'll be visiting Akron? I still want to see if I can set something up down here in SW Ohio.

"If Brad's not going to keep the monastic vow of celibacy, one of the four root vows in the Vinaya, it seems silly to quible about wearing or not wearing robes or long hair. Very few monks in Japan observe the Vinaya and I don't know how Buddhist monasticism is undertood in modern Japan."

Maybe its about time to change the vows a little. Namely the celibacy part.

Enjoyed the interview Brad and I'm currently enjoying sit down and shut up too, nice one.

My understanding of the shaven head things is the detachment from self i.e . vanity but I'm sure it served a practical purpose too re head lice et. Working in a primary school makes me whant to sahve my head for that reason LOL!

Robes did seem a bit odd for the first second.

As regards celibacy the soto monks at Throssel Hole over here in the UK are not allowed to marry and presumably must be celibate. Apparently they used to be able to marry until Rev. Master Jiyu Kennett changed her mind about it. Don't know the reasons why but I know it did cause some upset, particularly for the monks who were married and from what I have been told had to separate or leave the order.

Regarding clothes and what to wear, at our Zen Center, during retreats, you are not necessarily required to wear robes unless on priest ordination track.

But as a nonresidential member I can report that the basic rules are practical: wear dark colors, no scent, no jewelry, no watches.

I found this helps support the retreat.I once was at another Buddhist retreat and found it painfully distracting when some people wore T shirts with loud graphics on them.

Its interesting to be in a group where the clothing is itself 'silent'--no text or logos.

As the days passed, despite the seeming uniformity of the clothes, people's individuality surfaced, but in subtler ways. I became sensitized to body language, saw how a particular individual tilted his or her or neck when walking or sitting.

Its fun to see the astonishing variation in people's bare feet, the ways unadorned hannds move and pause when holding bowls and serving food during the meals.

But it may be many of these rules had quite practical origins and acquired symbolic meaning later.

In old days when it was laborious to cut firewood and then heat up bath water for an entire community, it was much easier for people to stay clean if they shaved their heads. It was probably also easier to cut down on lice infestations too--an important consideration in the days before DEET was available.

And, clothing had to be modified for climate. Monks had feweer items of clothing in Southern India and south Asia, then added more and more layers of robes as the practice migrated north.

Chinese and Japanese monks who lived at monasteries where farmwork had to be done required an additional set of day labor work clothes,along with formal robes.

Id say first things started for reasons of practicality then layers of symbology were added.

since I'm bald, and also a buddhist "priest" (the word, by the way, means "elder", in ancient Greek), I've decided to shave them according to the vinaya, although I don't feel compelled by it: that is at most at the full moon and at the new moon. That's enough. That way, I don't feel I look like one of the crowd, and especially the Deshimarist zen crowd.

I know some of them who shave almost everyday, and yet sport earrings, even lipstick for the girls, and so on. Makes no sense.

come on drew, now you're just being disingenous. i hate it when people bring 'but first lets analyse the definitions of the words we're using in the debate' type tactics. its bullshit and only done by people who have no idea what they'retalking about. e.g. me: killing people is badsome dickhead: ah but what is 'bad'? and how can we define it when blah blah blah blah.

Dan, my point was not to quibble over the definition of "ordinary" but to discuss what fits in the category. If you made a simplistic statement like "killing people is bad" then yes, I'd agree with it but wonder what your point was. But if you said, "People who do bad things shouldn't be allowed on airplanes," I'd wonder exactly what kind of bad things you were talking about, and exactly where we draw the line. I'd agree that people who do certain bad things should be banned from airplanes. But are you talking about people who kill flight attendants, or people who drink too much coffee?

So I know what "ordinary" means, and I am not disputing it. But I also know that my ordinary clothes would be rather unusual for someone else. So if Buddhists should only appear on TV wearing ordinary clothes... well, what counts as ordinary?

And do we want to be ordinary? Do we want people who see Buddhists on TV to be impressed by just how ordinary we are? Is being ordinary the only way to be skillful?

'drew: You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested we should try to be ordinary as a goal in itself, or that Buddhists in general should dress in any particular way. I would feel kinda silly wearing them myself, and I think Brad looks a little silly in them, but I don't think the Dalai Lama would look right without them... of course, he's from Tibet, so robes don't make him look like a fantasy role-playing convention refugee.

All I was saying is that if one wears an unusual costume, one should expect that the message the costume sends may be heard louder than anything one says by most people. That doesn't mean one should never dress up. It just means that we should be aware of the impression our appearance gives other people, if we want to communicate effectively. OK?

good interviewI think you are more naked wearing the robethan if you hadn'twith each point your interviewer was aiming for controversy, you succinctly set it straight, set it straight, set it straight.

Hair today, gone tomorrow... You didn't shave it as a punker, you did for ordination...now the hair is back...gone yesterday, hair today

sitting quietly, the grass grows by itselfvery ordinary, this practice

That's EXACTLY why Ikkyu is THE dude when it comes to understanding Japanese Buddhism. The monks I know are all married or have significant others. The influence of Ikkyu is very great (though not widely publicized).

I think the example of Shinran was much more influential than that of Ikkyu. Of course, the proximate cause of Japanese monks getting married was the Meiji era edict saying it was no longer a crime for monks to marry.

" 'drew: You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested we should try to be ordinary as a goal in itself, or that Buddhists in general should dress in any particular way. I would feel kinda silly wearing them myself, and I think Brad looks a little silly in them, but I don't think the Dalai Lama would look right without them... of course, he's from Tibet, so robes don't make him look like a fantasy role-playing convention refugee.

All I was saying is that if one wears an unusual costume, one should expect that the message the costume sends may be heard louder than anything one says by most people. That doesn't mean one should never dress up. It just means that we should be aware of the impression our appearance gives other people, if we want to communicate effectively. OK? "

Jules writes: "It just means that we should be aware of the impression our appearance gives other people, if we want to communicate effectively. OK?"

Yes. And that is what I meant when I said that any clothing is a costume. Anything we choose to wear will give an impression to other people. That impression is always, in some manner or another, artificial. The Dalai Lama looks normal in his costume because you see him in it all the time. Boy George looks normal in his costume. Dolly Parton looks normal in her costume.

Just a thought . . . I am guessing that many, if not most, of the viewers of that program, are much less familiar with Brad than we are. To them, he likely appeared quite normal in his robes. We have preconceived notions of how Brad does/should dress, based on what we know of his personality and on how we've seen him dress until now.

Yes. And that is what I meant when I said that any clothing is a costume. Anything we choose to wear will give an impression to other people. That impression is always, in some manner or another, artificial.

Some impressions are helpful in communicating with other people, and some impressions aren't. So I think it does matter what people wear.

I guess I don't really see what your point is... Are you trying to say it doesn't matter what people wear? 'Cause I think the interview would have gone a little differently if Brad had showed up naked...

Aumeye: I agree. Having read the books and the Blogs. The Brad I picture in my mind is wearing a 'Gozilla loves Minor Threat' tee shirt. I though he did a good job of being interviewed and getting his point across which is the important thing not his hair or dress. I think it has been pointed out about 50 million times that a lot of the rules were written for teenage monks hundreds of years ago. We no longer know why looking at big fish was a bad thing for example. Few if any of the zen teachers I have met are living the way people did back then so I think the shaved head thing is a little pretentious.

Robes? -> You should be punk!Punk? -> You should wear robes!Hair? -> You should be bald!Bald? -> You Zen pretender!Gentle? -> You are superficial!Rude? -> Stop being rude!Rules? -> You are dogmatic!No rules? -> You don't honor tradition!

Robes? -> You should be punk!Punk? -> You should wear robes!Hair? -> You should be bald!Bald? -> You Zen pretender!Gentle? -> You are superficial!Rude? -> Stop being rude!Rules? -> You are dogmatic!No rules? -> You don't honor tradition!

Robes? -> You should be punk!Punk? -> You should wear robes!Hair? -> You should be bald!Bald? -> You Zen pretender!Gentle? -> You are superficial!Rude? -> Stop being rude!Rules? -> You are dogmatic!No rules? -> You don't honor tradition!

Tuesday, July 10, 2007Decision of the next leader in Dogen Sangha International

Dear All Members of Dogen Sangha International,

As you know, about 2 and a half years ago, I have crushed my lower spine accidentally, and even though such damage has been cured year by year, having become 87 years old, my physical condition has become weaker and weaker gradully. Therefore I have been thinking to select the next leader in DSI, and researched the problem from many kinds of viewpoints, and at last I decided to select Ven Brad Warner as my successor in DSI.

Therefore, yesterday, that is, 9th, July, 2007, I have requested him to become the Leader of DSI, and I have got his affirmative answer.

So we will begin our talks about the principles of DSI activity, therefore I would like to listen to all members' opinions on DSI activity.

Of course there is no problem for every group in DSI to continue the former activities, and we will gradually identify them together.

Therefore I hope all members in DSI will express your own opinions about miscellaneous problems to me directly, and we will think about the further expansion of DSI totally.

With best wishes Gudo Wafu Nishijima

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Congratulation!Do the robes have a relation to that fact?! ;-)You don´t look that bad being bald. The only disturbing thing is the colour of your head. But as time comes... ;-)Rock on!Stille (Christoph)

Brad, My question is in regards to the ethics of Dharma Transmission, and I'd be very grateful if you might let me know your thoughts on the matter. A while ago, you wrote the following on your blog:

--- While I don't know ofanyone offering Dharma Transmission by e-mail (yet!), it could happen. Theperson who did this would certainly be taken to task by his (or her, butlet's pretend only a man would be this slimy) teacher or the other membersof his group. He'd certainly be shunned by the entire worldwide Buddhistcommunity and denounced by whatever sect he'd been ordained in. Thetransmissions he granted wouldn't hold much weight with anyone who wasserious about Buddhism. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.--

Now, I heard "on the grapevine" that this is exactly what Gudo Nishijima has recently done; see www.ritsudo.com (Richard Morrissey).

I am not saying that a) this is the certified truth. Perhaps, in fact, Nishijima has met Mr Morrissey a number of times. But I have heard that the two have never met in person.

I am also not saying that this method of Dharma Transmission is "wrong". I am not accusing Nishijima or Morrissey in any way. I am an ignorant fool, and in no way pretend to have an opinion on the fundamentals of dharma transmission.

However, I thought that, seeing as you wrote what you did a while ago + the fact that you have been granted the 'leadership' of 'Dogen Sangha International', you are bound to have an opinion on the matter.

I would be grateful if you could respond to this. Even if to say that I am talking utter crap and that Mr Morrissey is a long-time student (not just over e-mail) of Nishijima's. Forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the keisaku.

As regards celibacy the soto monks at Throssel Hole over here in the UK are not allowed to marry and presumably must be celibate. Apparently they used to be able to marry until Rev. Master Jiyu Kennett changed her mind about it. Don't know the reasons why but I know it did cause some upset, particularly for the monks who were married and from what I have been told had to separate or leave the order.

Ah! I actually know something about this! The story I read in one of Rev. Jiyu's books is something like this: at different times she trained in both Japan, where monks don't have to be celibate, and in Malaysia, where they do. When she came back to the West she wasn't sure which system to use, so she figured they'd allow monastic marriages and see what happened.

What happened, in many cases anyway, was:- the couples had children- they were unable to support their children while living off donations, so:- they took regular paying jobs, and:- they ended up spending most of their waking hours outside the monastery.In Rev. Jiyu's view, this meant they had effectively become laypeople. She recalled, now that she thought about it, that most of the married monks in Japan also wound up leaving the monastery for precisely these reasons. So she decided it didn't work very well.

Soto is the Democratic party of Zen. They have weirdo-lefties like Michael 'Machinegun' Moore, Eco-geeks like Al 'Net-Inventor and EarthSaver' Gore, and mostly super-boring mainstream do-gooders (for example Billary).

Nothing wrong with that, I was just trying to express the wide spectrum Soto offers.

Rinzai is probably something like the National Rifle Association. Use of total contradiction and lack of logic is their method.Hit me with your rhythm stick. Hit me! Hit me! HIT ME!

Mysterion, white tuxedos were fashy in the 1930s so I apologize I thought you've been around that long. Do the jive while chanting.

You could be my dad indeed, I can send you a hair sample for a DNA check.

I didn't know you Americans need passports, I thought you just invade countries.

Anyone else that Brad could not look the interviewer in the eyes. I wonder why?

Oh, the latest rant over on SG is funny. Brad can dish it out, but he does not like any coming his way :) Too much attachment to self image methinks. It must be fun to be a part of a sangha that likes to wash its dirty laundry in public.

Anyone else that Brad could not look the interviewer in the eyes. I wonder why?

Oh, the latest rant over on SG is funny. Brad can dish it out, but he does not like any coming his way :) Too much attachment to self image methinks. It must be fun to be a part of a sangha that likes to wash its dirty laundry in public.